On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 20:41 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On 8/31/06, Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > diff -puN mm/Kconfig~generic-get_order mm/Kconfig
> > --- threadalloc/mm/Kconfig~generic-get_order 2006-08-30 15:14:56.000000000 -0700
> > +++ threadalloc-dave/mm/Kconfig 2006-08-30 15:15:00.000000000 -0700
> > @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
> > +config ARCH_HAVE_GET_ORDER
> > + def_bool y
> > + depends on IA64 || PPC32 || XTENSA
> > +
>
> I have a feeling this has been discussed before, but wouldn't it be
> better to let each architecture define this in its own Kconfig?
As long as the conditions are simple, I think it would be nice to keep
it this way. It makes it pretty obvious to tell what is going on from
_one_ place.
> At some point, I have to add AVR32 to that list, and if one or more
> other architectures need to do the same, there will be rejects.
True, there will be rejects. But, do you think they will actually take
more than a moment to merge?
-- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
